Turner County herald. (Hurley, Dakota [S.D.]) 1883-19??, 1887-07-28
IMPORTANT DECISION
The Through.ticket Cases p.e,,,
Against the Alton and aoel y
Island Companies.
Eastern Railways Not Obliged to Pam.
Payment CT Commissions by Con,
necting Lines.
washington telegram !,

o'A " AiioSt lnp0ftant ~
was the one in relation to the paynsa E @
of commiss ;ons by one road toM.
agents of another and connecting ross
, for sales of through tickets, s iiss
points in dispute grew out Of H. 81
commissions and anti-commisso.a''
fight between the seaboard trnI 81
lines and some of thu,
Western connections. The followinar M
three cases were disposed of in the o1s &
opinion: The Chicago and Alton Com. on.
pany against the Pennsylvania Com,
pany, the same against the Pennsvl. p
vania Railroad Company, and the CG. =
cago, Rock Island and Pacific RAILROAD il
Company against the New York Cen.
trail and Hudson River Railroad Com, {
pany. The following synopsis contains
the more important points of the opia.
ion, which is very long:
The complaints in these cases were founded
upon the third section of the act to regulate
commerce, and charge violations Of that SEQ.
tion by the defendant companies in refusing
certain facilities for receiving, forwarding ami
delivering passengers to complnnants' lines
consisting of through or coupon tickets which
being afforded to other and competitive co,nns,
nies, give, the complainants allege, undue and
unreasonable preference to those companies,
The material facts found by the commission sro
-recited mt length in the opinion. They show
that for several yoars prior to the tina
when the act to regulate commerce took
effect, SUI stantinlly all the railroad com.
panies of tho country, including the com.
p'ainant5 and defendants. paid commissions
The defendant companies and come others for
about two years have made earnest efforts to
abata the practice of paying commissions
About n month before tho act to regulate com.
merce became operative the defendant com.
panies took STEPS to procure agreements with
their connecting companies to abolish the COM
missicn business altogether. With this end in
Wow they sent printed circulars on or about
March 10 last to their connecting companies,
expressing their willingness to continue to act
as agents i'll the sale of through tickets
and stat ny tho nature of the agreement
The circular of the defendant CoInpanies
contained condition prohibiting the pay
to its agents. The complainant companies re.
fused to enter into the agreement proposed.
On account of their refusal the defendants,
after April last, refused to sell through tick
cts over the complninants' roads from Chicago
and st. Louis to Kansas City, and still refuse,
solely for those reasons. On these facts the
complainant; aver that the defendants refuse
TO afford them reasonable, proper and equal
fhcii tics for receiving forwarding, and deliv-
erins pnssensers, and give undue preference to
competing roads in contrayention of tho pro.
visions of the act to regulate commerce.
The def .ndants deny tnat they have violated
the provisions of the act, and claim that they
to fix the amount of their compens ation and to
pay themselves; that the payment of commis-
SONS by other companies is demoralizing to
their agents, and often leads TO determinations
TO passengers tor reads paying large commis-
sions, by division OF commission between the
agent and the passenger; that commissions
consume considerable percentage of the -ev-
enne from the sulc of through tickets; that
without commissions all connecting roads stand
Oh u pasiS of equality, and passengers select
their own routes utiniuenced by agents having
suadine them to choose some particular route.
INC ohensos of WHICH the commission has
cognizance are anything done or omitted to be
oone IN contraVention of the provisions of the
act TO regulate commerce. Railroad corpora
tlonS In the States the creations of the State
governments, ana their powers and duties arc
aehneu by their charters or by general laws,
Inc act doea not make it the duty of State rail-
ROADS to organize and operate through lines of
Tran .raiis portaiion consisting of separate roads
owned by different companies. The organiza-
ton OF such lines is left under tho act to tho
voluntary action of railroad companies as it az.
istel previously. The law in this instance does
sel through tickets the road of another rail,
road company. III the absence OF STATUTORY mi.
ttn9rity ono raflrohd company can only sell
tiSkets ana crock baggage over the road OF an
othcr railroad company by agreement Rv
agreement between two companies thronck
tickets, very properly, are sold and used over
connecting lines as u convenience OF passenger
Iiahc ana IN iuducement for patronage. Such
tickets very evidently are q great conyenience
20 TO- srafeieis a nnd perhaps to connecting roads,
Dut they arc II part of the voluntary arrange,
nents for business purposes, like Joint tariffs
interchange OF cars, and common use of depots
u being, therefore, under our statute, matter
OF mutual agreement whether coupon or
thfouSh tickets shall be sold by u railroad COM
Dany over roads of some other cOmnonieu
. follows TINT the form OF such tickets
md the manner Of their sale are also m alters
u agreement by the companies interested II
companies can agree upon their tariffs the
oIln OF their tickets, and how they shall be
IN rIffl,f -, d.,
agreement become interstate carriers but if
hey cannot agree the act does not undertake.
o coerce them to do business together upon
erms that may be justly Objectionable or in
urious. Through tickets are not Indispensable
or these purposes; but assuming for the sake
! ~ argument, that they may be deemed afacili-
W ies ior the receiving, forwarding, and deliver
ng OF passengers to connecting lines. carr;ers
re only required to afford reasonabIe. nroner
Iaa ~ equal facilities. They nre not required to
'qua1 facilities - y "A'7 "A'7
This presents the question whether tho nav.
lent M OF commissions is in itself, or as Incl
!, ,pie ana ., proper Within the purview of the
tatute. The facility of through tickets is
s!th anhany offered to all, and may be enjoyed
no tickets should charge N comrn;sa;nn Il
you'd doubtless be regarded as mn imposition.
Ia ,base 'Ie,eiore, unreasonable and improper.
,an;o, eoTnlnssions are grntuities to induce
: peSiai ~, eliorts Tor the company paying them.
! VIC. We STATUTE do not give ono company nu.
norlty to subsidize the agents Of anotb ar
faoS, a.u ~ II the practice is injurious in its
nects, IL certainly cannot be reasonable nnI
roper. >'o AiiA
me statute does not dlivest n railroad comma
y , ol ,ne q exclusive right to control its own in
: ifnai pa anairs to employ its own agents. to reg.
ia iaee Their duties. and to pay them such con-
ensatlon as it may deem proper Tho right NJ
~nersh1p OF railroad property with tho power
. SonIrol over employees and management of
: rnopefty is as absolute under the act IA before
. o,. p.sss,tse: ~ me regulation of commerce be.
seeh me states, which is al that the act con-
~ ~ Plates, does not involve community of
.operty, or Joint control of subordinatns nu,ong
40 seFerai companies That honor tbroupi,
~, :, s Inc corporate powers of every com
oses within its prescribed sphere remain nm
y pared With the legitimate exercise nf
,ese III ~ poMers another company has no concern
AZ no right to interlpeddie
I or the proper government of their own euh
dinates the defendant companies have forb;G.
~ ~ men agents to receive commissions from,
er roads OF companies that refuse to recoa.
1e this cooperative authority, but insist an
.pSslalizlnS Sl the nSents In these directions tho
'iendanes nave not transcended their raasn,,
ne rights. Ono person or corporation has M,
sht TO 1nte rfere with the employees Of another M
-, -, .ne statute does not disturb this old md
Inc defendants might rest upon thar rio,,tt
~ htrol m the official conduct of their own agents.
actes sS s9ants anfsher @ and show by evidence the
itural and usual tendencies are to n. wariet,,a ~
uses. 80 VIZ W ~ variety OF
The opinion then quotes the testi.
ony OF an officer of the Pennsylvania
abroad and others to the effect that
We're used to corrupt
'ents to sell through tickets over the
lines in preference
others; that these commissions.
mounting in the average to Is per
Mt OF the value of the tickets, were
equently divided with the purchaser
e.reby making q discrimination in
tes IN favor Of the company which
I'D the commission, and that agents
metlmes received more money from
her companies in this way than they
eeived from the companies which en-
oy them, and SO passed, in measure.
q, : OF their employers control.
The opinion continues:
practice capable of producing and having
: oraen1cy luz 1y 10 produce results thus Described
!, .t mos pe reasonable or proper, and a railroad
npuny i,ly is fuliy JUSTIFIED in the use OF ali law
, piecautlons to protect itself and its aeents
aa 1n.he sueh 1nyasions of its corporate author.
.ll' aliu lts business morality. According To tho
", s:,.iony, i. the defendants are supported II,
~ y. position on this question by very large
goiity OF connecting roads shnN;no = -